WarSclerotic

DEBKA.

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad went to Kabul Wednesday, March 10 on three errands – two demonstrative and one substantive:
1. He needed to demonstrate Iran was still a potent player in the affairs of the region’s countries, notwithstanding the reverse suffered by the pro-Iranian alliance in Iraq’s general election. It was his intention to show that the Iraqi setback was an isolated episode.
(More about Iraq’s election results in HOT POINTS below.)
2. He wanted to emphasize that Tehran does not need to ask Washington for permission to take a hand in the affairs of Afghanistan or Iraq; Iran’s regional standing is solid enough for independent action.
3. He decided to warn Afghan President Hamid Karzai against letting the Americans use their Afghan bases to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.
This possibility has got Iranian leaders deeply worried.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s Iranian and intelligence sources report Tehran is anxiously tracking the US troop build-up in western Afghanistan, concentrated at the big air and military bases near Herat, not far from the Iranian border. The Iranian president told Karzai he cannot understand why special forces from the US 82nd Airborne Division and Air Force units are massed so close to the Iranian border in western Afghanistan, when the main coalition war thrust is going forward in the south.
The pile-up of US forces in the West was even more puzzling, he found, in view of the fact that the southern town of Kandahar has been prescribed as the next US-led battle arena.

Tehran believes US is only pretending to restrain Israel…

The Iranian and Afghan presidents are both fluent in the Farsi language and could therefore speak tête-à-tête without interpreters.
Ahmadinejad’s questions were largely rhetorical. He did not expect answers from Karzai, knowing that the Afghan president does not make the decisions on how to deploy US troops in his country – or even always know about international military movements. But, in the interests of regional politics – and with an eye on Pakistan and India too – Tehran chose to go on record as warning President Karzai that any US military action against Iran from Afghan soil would meet with an Iranian reprisal powerful enough to shake the Karzai government off its perch.
The Iranian president told his Afghan host that a similar warning would be posted to Baghdad. The new Iraqi government would be warned after it is installed that Iran would have zero tolerance for an American attack staged from Iraqi soil.
From the content and tone of the Ahmadinejad-Karzai conversation in Kabul, DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s sources learned that Iran does not believe the Obama administration is sincere in its efforts to engage internal elements in diplomacy or in its moves to hold Israel back from attacking its nuclear sites. Iran fears these activities are just camouflage to obscure active American preparations for a strike.
The Iranians eye with mistrust the heavy traffic of American official visitors to Israel, including even Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint US Chiefs of Staff, and the frequent travel of top Israeli defense brass to Washington. Iranian intelligence analysts don’t buy the proposition that this activity is designed to restrain Israel and estimate that it is devoted to intense work for aligning US and Israeli military plans.
The Iranians are trying to sort out the date of this attack and find out which forces will take part, while wondering how well US and Israeli militaries mesh in the prospective operation.
Their skepticism may be genuine, but at the same time, Ahmadinejad understands the value of drumming up a threat by an outside enemy for uniting a nation behind its government. This is not a card he will pass up in his campaign to suppress every last dissident voice.

Administration’s Dressing Down of Israel is a ‘Gross Overraction’.

New York, NY, March 12, 2010 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today said it was shocked and stunned by the Administration’s public dressing down of Israel by saying it had “undermined trust and confidence in the peace process, and in America’s interests,” as related by Assistant Secretary of State Philip J. Crowley in his daily briefing.  Crowley was referring to the announcement about future building in Jerusalem made during Vice President Joe Biden’s Israel visit.

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

We are shocked and stunned at the Administration’s tone and public dressing down of Israel on the issue of future building in Jerusalem.   We cannot remember an instance when such harsh language was directed at a friend and ally of the United States.  One can only wonder how far the U.S. is prepared to go in distancing itself from Israel in order to placate the Palestinians in the hope they see it is in their interest to return to the negotiating table.

It is especially troubling that this harsh statement came after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly and privately explained to Vice President Biden the bureaucratic nature in making the announcement of proposed new building in Jerusalem, and Biden accepted the prime minister’s apology for it.  Therefore, to raise the issue again in this way is a gross overreaction to a point of policy difference among friends.

The Administration should have confidence and trust in Israel whose tireless pursuit for peace is repeatedly rebuffed by the Palestinians and whose interests remain in line with the United States.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

Hillary Clinton

The crisis in US-Israeli relations took a sharp turn for the worse Friday night, March 12, with a phone call from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warning Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu that the relationship was at risk unless Israel toed the administration’s line in renewed talks with the Palestinians. Israel must take immediate steps to demonstrate it was interested in renewing efforts for a Middle East agreement, he was told – a reference to sweeping concessions, including halting construction in Jerusalem.
It was the sudden announcement of an added 1,600 homes in East Jerusalem’s Ramat Shlomo in the middle of Vice President Joe Biden’s visit which tipped the already tense relations into this crisis. Netanyahu told Biden it had come about without his knowledge.
Two days after Biden condemned the announcement, Clinton delivered a tough message, saying Washington considered the announcement “a deeply negative signal about Israel’s approach to the bilateral relationship and counter to the spirit of the vice president’s trip.”
She said she could not understand how this happened,”particularly in light of the US strong commitment to Israel’s security.”
debkafile: The administration is clearly taking advantage of the weakness Netanyahu projected during the Biden visit to swallow its Iran policy, over which Israel feels it has been jilted, as well as its Palestinian policy.
Our exclusive analysis earlier detailed some of the steps, including those of the visiting US Vice President, which exacerbated the misunderstandings between Jerusalem and Washington, as follows:

The fallout from the US Vice President Joe Biden’s 48 hours in Israel undid a year of effort by the Netanyahu government to build a foreign policy and an understanding with Washington as the bedrock of a coordinated proactive policy on Iran, debkafile‘s exclusive sources report. Instead of ironing out misunderstandings which have marred relations, the visitor struck out on his own as America’s would-be Middle East policy overlord. Under the unrelenting pressure of the visit and its mishaps, prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his closest ally, defense minister Ehud Barak, almost came to blows.
The announcement approving 1,600 new homes for the existing East Jerusalem suburb of Ramat Shlomo popped out at a particularly unfortunate moment. It may have been meant to mark Israeli resentment over Washington’s ineffectual handling of the Iranian nuclear drive. Instead, the announcement hit the Israeli prime minister in the face and gave Biden a large whip for beating the Israeli government down.

He was not the only one. Barak, leader of Labor, the senior partner in Netanyahu’s Likud-led coalition, ran alongside Biden, both using the Jerusalem housing announcement to intimidate, punish and bend the prime minister to their will  over the Jerusalem housing mishap.
Barak accused Netanyahu of recklessly causing irreparable damage to relations with the Obama administration and wrecking the diplomatic basis for a military strike against Iran’s nuclear industry.
The breakdown of the partnership which has dominated Israeli policy-making in the past year is of consequence not only for domestic political equilibrium, but also for the Netanyahu government’s world standing
Sources close to these events told debkafile that the prime minister came close to cracking under Barak’s onslaught, losing his cool and acting jumpy and confused. He could have calmly ordered the suspension of the 1,600 housing approvals for the four months allotted negotiations with the Palestinians – as he did for an ambitious scheme announced by Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat for Silwan, shortly before Biden’s arrival.
He refrained from this step for two reasons:

First, he could not afford to be seen folding under pressure to halt new construction in Jerusalem, although implementation of this particular scheme was at least two years away.
Second, he could not be sure the Interior Minister, ultra-Orthodox Shas leader Ellie Yishai – who holds jurisdiction over the planning commission – would not disobey him and throw the government into crisis. Netanyahu would be finished in his Likud party and much of the country if he lost his government by interrupting construction in Jerusalem, a highly sensitive issue
Caught on the horns of this dilemma, the prime minister hesitated too long, giving the Palestinians a chance to cash in on the accelerating crisis and lay down fresh terms for resuming peace talks. Finally, he decided to pacify the American leader and the defense minister by creating a new mechanism to prejudge all building permits for Jerusalem before they were processed.
By slowing down planning permission for construction, this device will have the effect of extending the West Bank building freeze to Jerusalem as well. Netanyahu has shown himself to be easy prey for pressure-wielders.
The maelstrom centering the prime minister obscured the fault-lines in the Obama administration shown up by Biden’s handling of his Middle East trip.
He came to the region with three missions: to sweeten US-Israeli relations, celebrate the launching of indirect Israel-Palestinian peace talks and underscore the commonality of US-Israeli purpose on Iran.
In the event, Biden fell down on all three counts, launching instead an independent Middle East posture at odds with the White House’s avowed policies.
This deviation was expressed in five ways:
1.  He hardly ever mentioned Barack Obama in any of his political appearances, preferring to say “we” – in other words, America, which he represented in his visit.
2.  While affirming American friendship for Israel and concern for its security, Biden’s recurring theme was this: “I can promise the people in Israel that we will confront as allies every security challenge that we will face.”
Here, too, “we” – meaning the United States – would define the security challenge and decide how to confront it, an attitude which was deeply resented in Jerusalem.
3. At his lecture to Tel Aviv University Thursday, March 11, before his departure, Biden said:  “The United States is resolved to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon” – a general statement with no commitment.
Until then, he had shunned any mention of Iran at all, but members of his party leaked word that he was leaning hard on Israel to prevent its resort to military action against Iran’s nuclear projects, without however offering any commitment on painful sanctions.
Saudi Arabia and its Arab Gulf neighbors got wind of the slugging-match over Iran in Jerusalem and were alarmed enough to demand clarifications from Washington. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was sent post haste from Kabul to Riyadh and Abu Dhabi with assurances that the Obama administration had not abandoned the road to a showdown with Iran, whether economic or military.
4.  The Biden party did not include Middle East envoy George Mitchell, but he did bring Dennis Ross along.
This seemed almost natural in view of Ross’s standing in the National Security Council as an expert on Iran.
However, given his long experience in Israeli and Palestinian affairs, the Vice President appeared to have chosen him as his senior adviser for the visit and sidelined presidential envoy Mitchell – yet another significant departure from the policy direction taken by the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
5.  And finally, instead of smoothing ruffled feathers in Jerusalem with interviews to the host media, Vice President Biden snubbed them all and granted the only interview of his trip to the Arabic Al Jazeera TV, whose news content is sharply slanted against Israel, US military campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and the Western war on terror.
By signing off his Israel visit with an Al Jazeera interview, Joe Biden made it perfectly clear exactly how he feels about the Jewish state.

This is the best analysis I have read of the seemingly “brain dead” action Israel took with Biden

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs.

Israel puts US on notice By Victor Kotsev Relations between the United States and Israeli administrations have been tense for the past year. When US Vice President Joe Biden landed in Israel on Monday, seeking to avert a probable Israeli strike on Iran and to formally restart the peace talks with the Palestinians, he was likely prepared for some difficult moments. His reception, however, caught him off-guard, as it did the entire international community. “A slap in the face” and “humiliation” for him are some of the phrases observers used to describe the plan for the construction of 1,600 new Jewish homes in East Jerusalem that was unveiled on Tuesday shortly before Biden was to have dinner with the family of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Attesting to his shock, Biden was 90 minutes late following the announcement. The construction plan drew immediate and sharp condemnation from the international community, including from the United Nations, the European Union, the Arab League and Biden himself. The Palestinians, who were never too keen to negotiate, announced that the talks would remain frozen until the plan was revoked. “We want to hear from [United States envoy George] Mitchell that Israel has cancelled the decision to build housing units before we start the negotiations,” Palestinian Authority chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said on Thursday. Once the initial surprise was over, Biden was left with the unenviable task of swallowing his pride and accepting (at least formally) Netanyahu’s excuse that he had been blindsided by his Interior Minister Elie Yishai (whose office issued the announcement). He also had to try and persuade the Palestinians that “the beginning of actual construction on this particular project would likely take several years”. There are two main explanations for this unexpected crisis, as well as a number of ramifications and twists. On the one hand, it is possible that a hiccup occurred inside the complicated Israeli bureaucracy – or even that Yishai, leader of the conservative ultra-orthodox party Shas and Netanyahu’s junior coalition partner, used the opportunity to boost his position at the expense of the prime minister. “Yishai faces fierce competition from within his party, but unlike Netanyahu, the interior minister can afford some criticism from Washington,” writes Amos Harel. “Actually, it might even help him among his voters.” [1] It bears mentioning that the proposed new homes are meant primarily for ultra-orthodox Jews who are Yishai’s constituency. Such an explanation would suggest staggering rifts within the Israeli bureaucracy, or, as the Jerusalem Post put it, “a dysfunctional government”. It would be further supported by Netanyahu’s reprimand of Yishai (the prime minister used the words “wretched, displaced and insensitive” to describe the timing of the decision) as well as by precedents such as Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon’s treatment of the Turkish ambassador in January (for which Ayalon was forced to apologize) [2]. However, given the broader circumstances of the spat, this is the less likely version of the events. Israeli leaders – including Netanyahu and Yishai (the latter also denied personal responsibility for the statement) – made a point of condemning the timing of the announcement, but not the construction plan itself. Netanyahu did not take any steps to reverse the decision; on the contrary, late on Thursday night his government approved a right-wing march through East Jerusalem. Moreover, a few hours prior to Biden’s arrival, the Defense Ministry approved the building of 112 additional homes in the settlement of Beitar Illit, where work had previously been suspended in accordance with the 10-month settlement construction halt announced in November. Legally, this constituted an even graver provocation than the building in East Jerusalem. All these events, coming in close succession, cannot be explained away as coincidences or bureaucratic hiccups. Contrasted with United States President Barack Obama’s oft-professed commitment to the peace process and the repeated calls for restraint coming from his administration, such steps amount to nothing other than a direct insult – all the more biting since they were wrapped in the full gamut of diplomatic civilities. The question remains: why would Israeli leaders go out of their way to embarrass the American administration? There is the Palestinian claim that Netanyahu simply aims to sabotage Obama’s peace effort; it may have something to do with the answer, but it doesn’t appear to be a satisfactory explanation. Few if any observers ever believed that much would come out of the current initiative; if Netanyahu wanted to bring about its demise, he would surely find a subtler way to do so than to spit in the face of Israel’s closest ally. We should not forget that 10 years ago, the Palestinians walked out on an offer that was more generous than anything they are likely to receive this time around. Netanyahu knows that well. He may or may not be serious about peace, but he is not so inexperienced as to take the blame for the failure of negotiations when he can count on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to do that for him. That leaves us again with a second option, as well as with the realization that the peace process is likely not a central consideration for the Israelis or the Americans. “Mitchell’s absence from the [Biden-Netanyahu] meetings indicate Palestinian talks don’t top agenda,” noted the Jerusalem Post on Tuesday. Biden arrived in Israel on the heels of a number of top US officials (he’s the third and highest-ranking such official to visit in as many weeks), and according to most analysts his primary purpose is to coordinate action on Iran. One of his first speeches on his arrival in Israel emphasized America’s “absolute, total, unvarnished commitment to Israel’s security”. In his final Tel Aviv address on Thursday, and perhaps as an attempt to reassure unequivocally his hosts, he stressed that “the United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, period”. The recent developments on the Iranian nuclear intrigue could shed light on the developments surrounding Biden’s visit. There are numerous indications that Israel is losing patience with Obama’s policy of restraint. The Americans first set the end of 2009 as a deadline for the diplomatic process, then postponed until the end of February this year, and last week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested that sanctions may be “months away”. On Monday, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, also suggested that it would take months before the agency provided recommendations on Iran to the UN Security Council. Meanwhile, perhaps encouraged by the US pressure on Israel and in an apparent attempt to tout the Jewish state, Iran transferred almost its entire stash of low-enriched uranium above ground, where it could easily be destroyed from the air. To Netanyahu, who has repeatedly promised to stop the Iranian nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes, this constitutes more than a personal challenge. The concept of deterrence holds a central place in Israel’s military doctrine and, from an Israeli point of view, inaction in the face of such touting threatens to erode the foundations of Israeli security. “At the very minimum,” writes Ha’aretz Israeli analyst, Avigdor Haselkorn, “Israel could face new attacks from the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah. At worst, the likelihood of a full-scale war would increase dramatically.” This leaves us with a final set of two options. On the one hand, if the US is truly adamant – as appears to be the case – in its pressure on Israel to hold back from a strike, Netanyahu most likely sees that as both a personal insult and a grave existential threat to Israel. In this context, his message to Biden could be interpreted as a stern warning that he means business with his threats to attack, and that the US has more to lose than to gain by twisting his arms. On the other hand, there exists the possibility that the whole thing is a masquerade designed to divert attention from an impending joint US-Israeli strike on Iran. Obama is unlikely to be comfortable with such a decision, but a number of analysts have argued that in the end, he might not have much of a choice. It is just about clear that diplomacy or sanctions won’t stop the Iranian nuclear program; moreover, it is not just Israel that feels threatened by Iran. On Wednesday, Saudi Arabia urgently summoned US Defense Secretary Robert Gates for clarifications on the Iranian problem, and on Sunday US Central Command chief General David Petraeus shared with CNN that “… there are countries [in the Gulf] that would like to see a strike [on Iran], us or perhaps Israel, even …”. This is the clearest indication yet of the pressure the US is facing from its crucial Arab allies in the Middle East, and it bears noting that Egypt, too, is firmly opposed to the Iranian regime and its nuclear program. It may well be that the American administration is faced with the choice to take action against Iran or to see its entire Middle East policy disintegrate.

Issue 436 – josephwouk@gmail.com – Gmail.

Obama Engages a New Iranian Partner – I Would the Revolutionary Guards Turn Against Their Own Ahmadinejad? Barak Obama In his thirteen-and-a-half months in office, President Barak Obama has never stopped looking for Iranian partners to engage in diplomacy for reining in its nuclear program. Spurned time and time again, he is now on his fourth try. His administration started out with the working hypothesis that Iran’s supreme ruler, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were not, despite their often wild rhetoric, total lunatics but political pragmatists who would eventually come around to a deal on their nuclear program. A plan was devised to let them off the hook of the international ban on uranium enrichment, and allow them to continue the process and go after the technology for building a nuclear weapon. It was assumed that the Iranians would stop short of actually assembling one. On this assumption, the Obama administration refrained from throwing its moral weight behind the protest movement when it sprang up in June over the alleged falsification of the presidential vote face of brutal suppression. When Tehran remained impervious to this inducement and diplomatic persuasion, Obama set September 2009 as the first deadline for Iran to comply with UN Security Council resolutions on enrichment and level with the International Atomic Energy Agency on its clandestine projects. He pushed the deadline back to December, when Tehran joined talks with representatives of the 5+1 (the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany) on a fresh plan for the transfer of most of Iran’s low-grade enriched uranium stock to Europe for further processing as fuel for medical research. Courting the Revolutionary Guards December went by without a formal Iranian response to the Six-Power plan – and so did January. Yet Washington still waited. Then, in early February, Ahmadinejad announced proudly that Iran would begin enriching uranium to 20 percent grade on its own. Still, Obama did not rule out another engagement bid. In answer to a question put to him on Feb. 9, he said: “At this point, it seems they have made a decision, but the door is still open.” Meanwhile, a US effort to bring Russia aboard a Security Council sanctions motion sank almost without a trace. The Obama administration’s fourth move is revealed here for the first time by DEBKA-Net-Weekly Washington sources: Since the last week of February, US emissaries have been engaged in a hush-hush quest for a deal with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps leaders, with a view to distancing them from their loyalty to president Ahmadinejad, a former member. In secret encounters with IRGC high-ups in Tehran and European cities, administration envoys made the following pitch: The Obama administration is not after regime change in Tehran; it has proved this by withholding its support from the opposition’s campaign of anti-government street protests in the heart of the Iranian capital in the last six months. In the meantime, US intelligence currently estimates that Iran’s opposition Green Movement is fading and no longer a threat to the regime. How about a lame-duck president? The Americans are also naturally au fait with the Revolutionary Guards’ internal affairs and therefore aware of the fundamental change in emphasis it is undergoing, gradually evolving from an organization geared to military functions to one dominated by the financial interests of its huge business empire. This dynamic was exhibited most prominently in the low profile its leaders maintained during the months of domestic upheaval besetting the government. Only rarely did a corps figure speak out in defense of the president or spiritual ruler. Indeed, note was taken in Washington that since January 2010, too, not a single commander has voiced support for Ahmadinejad. The Obama administration deduced the Guards had come to regret engineering his re-election as president in June 2009. Washington hoped that this disenchantment stemmed from the same disappointment as the Obama administration felt in Ahmadinejad’s continued pursuit of the most radical path in all circumstances, rather than opting for a more pragmatic nuclear policy vis-à-vis the US. Inferring a common interest, White House strategists drew up a four-point plan for a joint US-IRGC effort to sideline the president. 1. Neither believe it is possible to oust the troublesome Iranian president or force him to resign before his term is up in 2013. Therefore, what the US is proposing is that the IRGC clip his wings and make him a lame-duck president for his remaining three years in office. The IRGC would be first in line for sanctions 2. The Revolutionary Guard high command should take into account that harsh sanctions against Iran, whether imposed by the UN Security Council or unilaterally by the US and its allies, could cripple up to one-third of the Islamic Republic’s economic activity. The Corps’ business bodies would be first in line for penalties that would seriously stunt its financial growth pattern. If, on the other hand, sanctions could be averted by becoming superfluous, the Guards’ economic base and its profitability would retain its robustness and continue to expand unhindered. 3. The Guards must pick a new candidate for president and groom him for election in 2013. DEBKA-Net-Weekly sources discuss the candidates proposed. The administration’s Iran experts are confident the Revolutionary Guard command would not want to see another extremist like Ahmadinejad’s mentor, the radical Ayatollah Messabah-Yazdi, replacing him, especially after Yazdi wrote in a political-religious work that it was incumbent on Iran to obtain nuclear arms, which he called a “special weapon of war.” Iran’s clerical elite rarely refers to the nuclear program in these terms in public. They would much prefer a realistic politician like the former president Hashem Rafsanjani or a seasoned diplomat like the Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani. IRGC reps listen and report back Because the bellicose ayatollah’s words have given wings to Tehran’s drive for a nuclear bomb, the US emissaries urged the Guards to start looking for a new presidential candidate right now and start preparing the ground for his ascent to office. 4. Touching on the most sensitive part of their mission, the men from Washington said the US is reconciled to Iran attaining a military nuclear capacity so long as it does not the cross the threshold and actually assemble or build stocks of atom bombs. Accepting that the IRGC is in control of the two key branches – the nuclear weapons program and the production of missiles for their delivery – Obama’s messengers proposed that both continue to be developed up to a point mutually agreed between Washington and the Guards. The US administration is still waiting for the Revolutionary Guards’ high command to respond to its proposals which its representatives promised to pass on to their superiors. But Washington is optimistic about an affirmative reply to its offer of cooperation. Indeed, the few administration insiders privy to the plan have been advised that moves are afoot to strip Ahmadinejad of his (Revolutionary Guard) armor. As for its al Qods Brigades external terrorist arm, the administration hopes that as ties of cooperation evolve, the IRGC can be weaned from its rampant relations with the most radical terrorist organizations in the Middle East. Obama and his aides are not deterred by the failure of this tactic when they tried to engage Syrian Bashar Assad. He cheerfully continues to host myriad terrorist organizations and arm Hizballah, while Hizballah itself used Western tolerance to lever itself into the Lebanese government without relinquishing its smuggled missile arsenal or dismantling its militia. Nuclear watchdog grants Obama five months for his new tack President Ahmadinejad chose Saturday, March 6, to heap insults of exceptional virulence on the United States: “September 11 was a big lie paving the way for the invasion of Afghanistan under the pretext of fighting terrorism,” he ranted, making sure the quote was aired in a state broadcast. He went on to call the al Qaeda hijackers airborne strikes on the World Trade Center’s twin towers a “scenario and a complex act of intelligence services.” This unbridled attack was taken in Washington to indicate that Ahmadinejad had got wind of the new diplomatic feelers Washington had sent out to the Revolutionary Guards and would not take them lying down, any more than he would give up his verbal abuse of Israel. Wednesday, March 10, the Iranian president landed in Kabul for added provocation. Addressing the media, he accused the US of playing a double game by establishing terrorist organizations, then fighting them. The impact of Obama’s latest venture on the political equilibrium of the Islamic Republic’s ruling regime has yet to be assessed. In the meantime, Washington has won some months for pursuing its latest diplomatic track. The gift came from Vienna Monday, March 8, when International Atomic Energy Agency director Yukiya Amano said the agency’s board would resume its consideration of Iran’s nuclear program and reach decisions only in five months’ time. July 2010 is therefore the US president’s next deadline for making headway on the Iranian nuclear controversy with its newest diplomatic partner, the Revolutionary Guards Corps, an internationally listed terrorist organization. He has five months to explore this channel. back to top

Obama Engages a New Iranian Partner – II New Obama Tactics for Iran Worry Mid East – and Some US Generals Gen. David Petraeus Iran was clearly uppermost in the mind of the US Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus when he was interviewed Sunday, March 7, by CNN’s by Fareed Zakaria. Some of his remarks, though sparsely reported, were unexpectedly revealing on the political situation in Tehran, the point its nuclear program had reached and the likelihood of a US and/or Israel attack on its facilities. DEBKA-Net-Weekly quotes the most telling of Petraeus’s remarks: Well, first, I think you’re absolutely right to say that the security elements in Iran, particularly the Revolutionary Guard’s corps, the – the Quds force and the Basij, the militia, have had to focus a great deal more on internal security challenges than they did in the past. And, indeed, I think you’ve heard it said by pundits that Iran has gone from being a theocracy to a thugocracy, that it has frankly become much more of a police state than it ever was in – in the past since the Revolution. Turning to the Iranian military nuclear program, he said: I think it’s something slightly different, actually. I think, first of all, that there can be a debate about whether or not the final decision has been made. I think in fact probably that final decision has not been made by the Supreme Leader, and that will be his decision to take. But that’s a little bit immaterial at this point in time because all of the components of a program to produce nuclear weapons, to produce the delivery means and – and all the rest of that, all of these components have been proceeding as if they want to be in a position where he can make that decision, having reached the so-called threshold capability. And that is, of course, what is so worrisome to the countries in the region, and, of course, above all, to – to Israel and obviously to the United States and the countries of the west.” Some Gulf leaders even hope for an Israeli strike Discussing a possible attack on Iran, which would fall under the CENTCOM commander’s jurisdiction, Gen. Petraeus said: Well, I think, first of all, you have to ask a country that is most directly concerned about this, and that would be Israel. And, at the end of the day, what we might want with a slightly detached perspective than the other western countries. What the Gulf States and others might be willing to accept – And by – by the way, there is no uniform or universal acceptance of what you had just laid out. In fact, it’s quite the contrary in many of the countries, and there’s quite a – ZAKARIA: Meaning what? They – they want the United States to strike? PETRAEUS: Well, there are some that are very, very, very, very concerned about the developments in Iran and they find that very – (CROSS TALK). PETRAEUS: – difficult. ZAKARIA: What does that mean? They want – they want the United States to strike? PETRAEUS: Well, it’s interesting. I think there – there is almost a slight degree of bipolarity there at times. On the one hand, there are countries that would like to see a strike, us or perhaps Israel, even. And then there’s the worry that someone will strike, and then there’s also the worry that someone will not strike. And, again, reconciling that is – is one of the challenges of operating in the region right now. Our job right now is to ensure that we’re prepared for any contingencies, that we can support in deed, with the diplomatic efforts, to transition now to the pressure track and so forth. Petraeus lets the cat out of the bag The Obama administration – particularly its Iran strategists – would have preferred three of the American general’s utterances to have remained unsaid in public, DEBKA-Net-Weekly military and intelligence sources note: 1. By calling Iran a “thugocracy,” Petraeus publicly stigmatized Iran’s dominant Revolutionary Guards, indirectly criticizing the Obama administration for seeking to engage this highly disreputable organization in dialogue for political-military understandings. 2. He rendered the debate within the administration over whether or not Iran is resolved to develop a nuclear weapon academic by delineating Iran’s progress toward that goal: “…all the components of a program to produce nuclear weapons, to produce the delivery means, have been proceeding…” ready for that decision. 3. On the chances of a military strike on Iran’s nuclear sites, Petraeus made a disclosure which neither Washington nor Jerusalem is keen to bring to the knowledge of their publics. He noted that some Persian Gulf states – without naming them – were worried enough about a nuclear-armed Iran to hope for a military strike to smash its program, regardless of whether it was carried out by the US, Israel, or both. The American general confirmed that the biggest danger hanging over Iran’s nuclear program came from Israel. The CENTCOM commander made these remarks just two days before US Vice President Joe Biden began visits to Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Biden’s primary mission was to make sure Israel did not embark on unilateral military action against Iran without prior clearance from Washington. Arabs frown on Obama’s secret talks with Revolutionary Guards Shortly before his arrival, our Washington and Jerusalem sources report, unofficial US emissaries brought Jerusalem the news – a shocker – that the Obama administration had launched secret talks with Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps representatives – despite its history as architect and sponsor of terror – and was maneuvering for more time to properly explore this track. The message was delivered to a number of prominent, non-official Israelis for relaying to prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and defense minister Ehud Barak. But it did not stop there. Jerusalem and Cairo are coordinated on military efforts against Iran. Through Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia are also linked by a more serpentine thread. Therefore, Washington assumed that after word reached Israel, it would not be long before it hit the Persian Gulf and the rest of the Middle East. DEBKA-Net-Weekly sources in the Gulf and the Middle East report that the Egyptians, Saudis and Gulf emirs reacted to the news with strong disapproval. Resentment in Cairo and Riyadh simmered amid the fear of disastrous repercussions. They suspected the US of not merely giving up on stopping Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, but feared Washington was about to embrace this prospect and then offer the moderate Arab nations the protection of an American nuclear umbrella. The sense in Riyadh is that the Obama administration is looking past next year’s US troop withdrawal from Iraq, and acting to bolster America’s permanent military presence and influence in the Gulf region. They fail to see how Washington can tame the al Qods Brigades, the IRGC’s operational arm for running terrorist and intelligence networks around the Persian Gulf and Middle East. Seen from Riyadh, the US diplomatic venture is a threat in that sense because it will let al Qods off the leash and free to enhance its potential for troublemaking among Saudi Arabia’s Shiite minority (10 million), which inhabits the oil-rich Eastern Provinces. Israel in shock Israeli political and military leaders were dismayed to learn of the Obama administration’s secret dialogue with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards representatives. Their first thought was that this step had put paid to the prospect of harsh sanctions, since Washington had repeatedly singled out the IRGC as its main target for penalties against Tehran, and would therefore promise the Guards full or partial immunity to keep the talks going.. Their second thought was that the Obama administration, still guided by the determination to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran, had in fact shortened Israel’s timeline for a decision on whether to go ahead with its military option against America’s wishes. The Netanyahu government therefore jumped as though bitten by a snake when Vice President Biden started his visit to Israel on Tuesday, March 9, by stating: “I can promise the people in Israel that we will confront as allies every security challenge that we will face.” This statement was interpreted as a warning that America would only help those who toe Washington’s line on policy-making, emphasizing that the US was there to decide when Israel was in danger and determine the appropriate response. The Netanyahu government first kicked back with a clumsy gesture of self-assertion. A local planning authority granted initial approval to a long-term plan for adding 1,600 housing units to the Ramat Shlomo suburb of East Jerusalem. This action succeeded in putting up every back, whether American, Palestinian or European, at the very moment that the Palestinians had been talked round into participating in US-mediated indirect peace talks with Israel, after stalling for more than a year. Biden was furious. Although this mini-crisis was patched up before he ended his visit, differences between Washington and Jerusalem linger, and more upsets may be expected.

FOXNews.com – Trip to Nowhere.

Defense Secretary Gates arrived unexpectedly in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday—reportedly due to alarm at whatever Vice President Biden said in Israel this week. This comes in the wake of an unusual public admission by Gen. David Petraeus, head of Central Command, who said last Sunday that there are countries in the Persian Gulf that would like the U.S. or Israel to strike Iran militarily to slow its nuclear program. This shows that Middle Eastern governments have no confidence that President Obama’s Iran policy will work. That should concern every American, given that Iran’s Islamist theocracy is the most likely candidate to help terrorists bring a nuclear weapon into an American or allied city.

Over the past month, more than a half dozen Obama administration officials have paraded through the Middle East to showcase the latest iteration of U.S. policy. Like college students taking to the road for spring break, “Diplopalooza” has involved copious talk, together-time and posing, but few real accomplishments.

In addition to the Vice President and Secretary of Defense, the flurry of teas and meetings has featured no less than the Secretary of State, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Adviser, the CIA Director, the head of the U.S. Strategic Command and Dennis Ross. Their goal? To pitch a set of diplomatic and communications strategies that have no conceivable chance of halting Iran’s nuclear program. And even though this set of talking points is being delivered in part by military and security officials, Iran’s leaders are breathing easy as neither they nor anyone else believe military options are being considered in Washington. Worse, many in the region believe one of Vice President Biden’s goals in his meetings with Israelis was to dissuade them from a military attack on Iran.

The Obama administration approaches this problem with questionable analysis and little urgency. Last month, Secretary Clinton said in Doha that “We see that the government of Iran, the supreme leader, the president, the parliament, is being supplanted and that Iran is moving toward a military dictatorship.” While that sounds like tougher talk, in fact it indicates the Obama administration still believes that there are senior officials within the regime on whom reason will work. The administration thinks this can be encouraged by sanctions. Both assumptions are wrong.

The Iranian government, like any, has cliques and factions, but they are not as deep and exploitable as the White House thinks. Mr. Obama should know better by now. Just last spring, he failed at this when he tried to talk above President Ahmadinejad to Supreme Leader Khamenei. In an April press conference with the king of Jordan, President Obama attributed Iran’s stated goal of demolishing Israel to Ahmadinejad and noted hopefully that it was actually Khamenei who “exercises the most direct control over the policies of the Islamic Republic.” The effort went nowhere. Predictably, neither leader felt any real pressure to join with the leader of the “Great Satan” against his colleague.

The latest effort to imagine a rift into existence is equally foolish. Iranian civilian officials are essentially indivisible from the Qods Force and other quasi-military elements. Trying to divide them would be like trying to divide the leadership of the Third Reich from the SS.

Sanctions also will fail, as they comprise an effort that is too little too late. China and Russia signaled again this week a disinclination to allow sanctions. Mrs. Clinton was also publicly shot down on this matter by Brazil during her visit there last week. Even if sanctions are enacted, it is not plausible to assume they could affect the Iranian nuclear program soon enough—if ever. The time for sanctions would have been a year ago when low oil prices and economic turmoil were having a serious impact on Tehran. That time has passed.

From its beginning, President Obama’s approach to Iran has been centered on image and emotion rather than decisive steps to advance American security. The administration began with the incorrect belief that its predecessor in the White House desired only confrontation and never tried to talk and listen to our adversaries. In the case of Iran, the U.S. in fact has been negotiating directly and through allies for decades. This mistake of believing one’s own campaign rhetoric, combined with a president who radiates weakness, indecision and a level of conceit that prohibits policy corrections, has convinced Tehran that is faces no real consequence from Washington for its actions.

If the Obama administration is serious about the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, it needs to bring military options into the policy equation now—or at least stop trying to dissuade Israel from employing them. Otherwise, we are pinning our security solely on the device of hope. That emotion is hardly a sound defense.

Christian Whiton was a State Department official during the George W. Bush administration from 2003-2009. He is a principal at D.C. Asia Advisory and president of the Hamilton Foundation. Follow him on Twitter: http://twitter.com/ChristianWhiton

WPR Article | World Citizen: Fears that Iran Wants to Trigger Mideast War.

As the United States steps up its campaign to impose economic sanctions on Iran, fears are growing in Washington and in the Middle East that Iran will try to trigger a new war in the region in order to shift attention from its nuclear activities, throw the U.S. and its allies off balance, and put Israel on the defensive.

Few people, if any, envision Iran launching a direct attack. Rather, the concern is that Tehran will manage to stir up trouble in Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, or even Syria, in order to spark a new confrontation between Israel and one of its Iran-allied neighbors. Even if the most likely scenarios do not include initial involvement by Iranian forces, at least not directly, the possibility that Tehran could join the fray cannot be discounted. And given the unpredictability of armed conflict and the level of tension between the U.S. and Iran, the possibility of eventual American involvement, while unlikely, is not out of the question.

The first high-ranking official to give voice to the worries that have now started spreading in the region was White House National Security Adviser Jim Jones. In an interview with the Jerusalem Post in late January, Jones predicted a series of events that, one might argue, are coming to pass.

“As pressure on the regime in Tehran builds over its nuclear program,” Jones made the case, “there is a heightened risk of further attacks against Israel or efforts to promote renewed violence in the West Bank.” Jones said that Iran, under pressure from domestic opponents and international critics, would likely “lash out” against Israel through Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Some go as far as to argue that Iran wants to invite an attack against its nuclear stockpiles on Iranian soil. That speculation grew out of Tehran’s puzzling decision on Feb. 14 to move almost all of its enriched uranium, in the presence of United Nations inspectors, to an above-ground plant in full view of spy satellites — and bomber pilots. As one official reportedly described it, it was “as if a bull’s eye had been painted on it.”

The idea that Iran would want to start a war on its own soil is most definitely a minority view. The more likely setting is a clash between Israel and one or more of Iran’s allies. Tehran would favor this, because it would occupy and degrade the fighting resources of the Jewish state and inevitably heat up anti-Israel sentiment.

In order to make it happen, Iran and its friends need a flashpoint, and Israel is clumsily providing a regular supply, with its frequent announcements of new building projects in the West Bank and Jerusalem. There is such an abundance of irritants that anyone interested in starting a new war would find no shortage of excuses.

Jones offered his warning as one more reason for Israelis and Palestinians to restart negotiations — perhaps persuasively so. After all, a stalled peace process offers Iran one more opening to stir up simmering resentments.

Jones is not alone in his concerns, and recent events have added credibility to his views. Worries about a new outbreak of war are being openly discussed not only in the U.S., but also in Israel and Lebanon. And there is talk in Israel that concern over an all-out conflagration was part of the reason why Israel may have decided to take the risk of eliminating Hamas’ Mahmoud al-Mabhouh last January. Mabhouh was a key player in the smuggling of weapons from Iran into Gaza.

If it is true that Tehran wants to light a fuse to ignite the Middle East, Ahmadinejad may have brought a book of matches to a recent meeting of Tehran’s backers in Syria. In late February, the Iranian president traveled to Damascus for a four-way meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas’ Khaled Meshal. The editor of the pan-Arab daily Al-Quds al-Arabi called the gathering “a war council.”

Only days earlier, the Iranian government reported that Ahmadinejad had phoned Hezbollah’s Nasrallah and advised him to prepare for a confrontation with Israel. “The level of readiness should be to such an extent,” the Iranian president reportedly told the Hezbollah chief, “that if [the Israelis] ventured upon repeating their past mistakes, they will be finished off.” In the case of war, Ahmadinejad reportedly said, “the Iranian nation will stand side by side” with those fighting Israel.

Hezbollah has already warned Israel that a new war would see the Jewish State fighting not only Hezbollah, as in 2006, but the Hezbollah-Syria-Hamas-Iran bloc. Nasrallah has been sharpening the blades of his rhetorical swords, warning Israel that the next war could see Hezbollah’s rockets reaching Israel’s major urban centers and strategic locations, such as Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion airport and the country’s major ports.

Hezbollah has vowed to retaliate against Israel for the 2008 killing of Imad Moughniyah, a top operative in the organization, which it blames on Israel. But the truth is that it’s easy to find a way to start a war in the Middle East. In 2006, Hezbollah triggered one by infiltrating Israel and killing a number of Israeli soldiers in an operation to kidnap two others.

Inside Israel and the West Bank, every day offers an opportunity for resentment, anger and violence. When the Israeli government announced a controversial decision to designate as Jewish Heritage Sites the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb — historical sites located in the West Bank — Hamas issued a call to launch a new Intifada against Israel. The call was answered with disturbances in Hebron.

After Friday prayers in Jerusalem last week, Hamas’ wish appeared to be turning into reality, when clashes erupted into pitched battles.

Tensions have increased with Syria, as well. A war of words broke out last month between Israel’s fiery Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and his Syrian counterpart. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried to calm the situation, but Ahmadinejad wants the sparks to continue flying.

Israel does not want a war now. Indeed, it is so concerned about a miscue leading to war that it decided to alter the long-planned Firestones 12 military exercise, canceling the part that included maneuvers along the Syrian border lest Damascus confuse the exercise with the kind of Israeli attack that Iran claims is imminent.

Experience of the Middle East has proven time and again that war can break out almost by accident, even when no one wants one to start. If a key player does want a war, it may prove impossible to prevent.

Frida Ghitis is an independent commentator on world affairs and a World Politics Review contributing editor. Her weekly column, World Citizen, appears every Thursday.

‘Hated Israel will be annihilated’.

Photo by: AP

By JPOST.COM STAFF
11/03/2010 15:48

Ahmadinejad warns aggression won’t save “most criminal regime in the world.”

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

US Vice President Joe Biden in Jerusalem

Tuesday night, March 9, Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu told visiting US Vice President Joe Biden that the Interior Ministry district building commission’s announcement clearing the addition of 1,600 homes to the existing East Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo had been made without his knowledge. It would take another two years of paperwork for building to begin.

The announcement drew sharp condemnation from the White House in Washington and from Biden, who arrived late for dinner with the prime minister, after condemning  the “substance and timing” of the announcement with the launching of proximity talks. This, he said “undermined the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions I’ve had here in Israel.” The announcement was roundly condemned by the UN Secretary, Egypt and Jordan, as well as Israeli opposition leaders.
Israeli officials later assured Washington there had been no intention to undermine the Biden visit, but Netanyahu took no steps to reverse the decision made by ultra-Orthodox, hard-line Shas interior minister Ellie Yishai.
According to debkafile‘s sources, the sweetness and light conveyed by public statements was hardly present in the US vice president’s private talks with Israeli leaders. Netanyahu may well have approved the Jerusalem announcement as an indirect comeback for the way the American visitor laid down the law on a number of issues of Israeli concern, chiefly the matter of Iran’s rapid progress toward a nuclear weapon.
The peremptory note was first noted when Biden called on president Shimon Peres, his first meeting with an Israel leader. He then explicitly warned Israel against venturing to attack Iran without prior American permission.

Even the oft-repeated American commitment to Israel’s security was delivered with a notable reservation: I can promise the people of Israel that we will confront every security challenge that we will face, said Biden. This statement ruled out unilateral Israel operations in its defense. Forget unilateral, he was saying: From now “we” make the decisions about the levels of “security challenge” facing Israel and how to “confront it.” And there was no false modestly about who the senior decision-maker was to be in this “alliance.”

Jerusalem was also taken aback by the US vice president’s assertion that Iran was isolated as never before. A distorting prism appeared to be held up by the Obama administration to justify its backtracking on painful sanctions for Iran. These sanctions were explicitly promised by the White House to Netanyahu and defense minister Ehud Barak in return for Israel’s consent to hold back from striking Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The Biden visit to Israel, therefore, far from meeting its avowed goal of smoothing over the differences between the Obama administration and Israel, has left Jerusalem more distrustful than ever.
The climate was not improved Monday, March 8, by Yukiya Amano, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, announcing that the IAEA board would get back to discussing Iran’s nuclear program and making decisions only in five months’ time. In other words, the UN Security Council would not have the nuclear watchdog’s recommendations for supporting a sanctions resolution before July.

Israel attributed this delay to Washington’s intervention as another gambit for shunting Israel and its demands for harsh sanctions aside, while also holding its hand against exercising any military options.
Approval for the expansion of Ramat Shlomo came on the heels of a tough new statement by defense minister Barak Tuesday. In a talk to students, he warned that when it came to Iran, Israel must keep its finger on the trigger at all times. And upon arrival in the United States this week, chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi was instructed from Jerusalem to talk tough on the Iranian question when he meets Pentagon officials in the coming days.

‘US playing game in Afghanistan’.

Photo by: AP

By ASSOCIATED PRESS
10/03/2010 13:30

Ahmadinejad: They created terrorists, now they claim to be fighting terrorists.